Under existing law, there are programs providing assistance for, among other things, emergency housing, multifamily housing, farmworker housing, home ownership for very low and low-income households, and downpayment assistance for first-time home buyers. Existing law also authorizes the issuance of bonds in specified amounts pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law. Existing law requires that proceeds from the sale of these bonds be used to finance various existing housing programs, capital outlay related to infill development, brownfield cleanup that promotes infill development, and housing-related parks. This bill would enact the Building Homes and Jobs Act. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations relating to the need to establish permanent, ongoing sources of funding dedicated to affordable housing development. The bill would impose a fee, except as provided, of $75 to be paid at the time of the recording of every real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law to be recorded, per each single transaction per single parcel of real property, not to exceed $225. By imposing new duties on counties with respect to the imposition of the recording fee, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would require that a county recorder quarterly send revenues from this fee, after deduction of any actual and necessary administrative costs incurred by the county recorder, to the Controller for deposit in the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, which the bill would create within the State Treasury. The bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, except as provided, require (1) for moneys collected on and after January 1, 2018, and until December 31, 2018, that 50% of the moneys deposited in the fund be made available to local governments for specified purposes, and 50% made available to the Department of Housing and Community Development to assist persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness, and (2) for moneys collected on and after January 1, 2019, that 70% of the moneys deposited in the fund be provided to local governments in accordance with a specified formula and 30% made available to the department for specified purposes, including a continuous appropriation of moneys to the California Housing Finance Agency for the purpose of creating mixed income multifamily residential housing for lower to moderate income households, as provided. The bill would also provide that funds allocated to a local government that does not have a documented plan to expend certain moneys allocated to it within 5 years would revert and be deposited in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund, to be used for specified purposes. By continuously appropriating moneys for use by the California Housing Finance Agency, this bill would make an appropriation. The bill would require that 20% of all moneys in the fund be expended for affordable owner-occupied workforce housing, and that moneys in the fund allocated to local governments be expended to support affordable housing, home ownership opportunities, and other housing-related programs, as specified. The bill would impose certain auditing and reporting requirements. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Sponsored bills
(1) The Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner than renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record. This bill would require the findings of the local agency to instead be based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. (2) The act authorizes a local agency to disapprove or condition approval of a housing development or emergency shelter, as described above, if, among other reasons, the housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with specified law. This bill would specify that a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete does not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter. (3) The act defines various terms for purposes of its provisions, including the term "housing development project," which is defined as a project consisting either of residential units only, mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential units, or transitional housing or supportive housing. For a mixed-use development for these purposes, the act requires that nonresidential uses be limited to neighborhood commercial uses, as defined, and to the first floor of buildings that are 2 or more stories. This bill would instead require, with respect to mixed-use developments, that 23 of the square footage be designated for residential use. (4) If a local agency proposes to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, the act requires that the local agency base its decision upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that specified conditions exist. This bill would specify that a housing development project or emergency shelter is deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision for purposes of the above-described provisions if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. The bill, if the local agency considers the housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, would require the local agency to provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity within specified time periods. If the local agency fails to provide this documentation, the bill would provide that the housing development project would be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. By requiring local agencies to provide documentation related to disapprovals of housing development projects, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) The act authorizes the project applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization, as defined, to bring an action to enforce its provisions. This bill would entitle a housing organization to reasonable attorney's fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce the act. (6) If a court finds that the local agency disapproved, or conditioned approval in a manner that renders infeasible the project or emergency shelter or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households without making the required findings or without making sufficient findings, the act requires the court to issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with its provisions within 60 days, including an order that the local agency take action on the development project or emergency shelter and awarding attorney's fees and costs. This bill would additionally require the court to issue an order compelling compliance with the act, as described above, if it finds that either the local agency, in violation of a specified provision of the act, disapproved or conditioned approval of a housing development project in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter or certain housing without making the required findings or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or, the local agency, in violation of another specified provision of the act, disapproved a housing development project complying with specified standards and criteria or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the required findings or without making findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The bill would authorize the court to issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development project or emergency shelter in violation of the act. (7) The act authorizes the court to impose fines if it finds that a local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter and failed to carry out the court's order or judgment compelling compliance within 60 days of the court's judgment. The act requires that the fines be deposited into a housing trust fund and committed for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. This bill, upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with these provisions within 60 days, would instead require the court to impose fines, as described above, in every instance in which the court determines that the local agency disapproved, or conditioned approval in a manner that renders infeasible, the housing development project or emergency shelter without making the required findings or without making sufficient findings. The bill would require that the fine be in a minimum amount of $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the bill would require the court to consider the local agency's progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need and any prior violations of the act. The bill would authorize the local agency to instead deposit the fine into a specified state fund, and would also provide that any funds in a local housing trust fund not expended after 5 years would revert to the state and be deposited in that fund, to be used upon appropriation by the Legislature for financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. If the local agency has acted in bad faith and failed to carry out the court's order, as described above, the bill would require the court to multiply the fine by a factor of 5. This bill would also require that a petition to enforce the act be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (a) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or taking any other final action on a housing development project or (b) the expiration of certain time periods specified in the Permit Streamlining Act. (8) In order to obtain appellate review of a trial court's order, the act requires a party to file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow. This bill would allow a party to instead appeal a trial court's order or judgment to the court of appeal pursuant to specified law. (9) This bill would make various technical and conforming changes to the Housing Accountability Act. (10) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1515 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1515 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (11) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Under existing law, there are programs providing assistance for, among other things, emergency housing, multifamily housing, farmworker housing, home ownership for very low and low-income households, and downpayment assistance for first-time home buyers. Existing law also authorizes the issuance of bonds in specified amounts pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law and requires that proceeds from the sale of these bonds be used to finance various existing housing programs, capital outlay related to infill development, brownfield cleanup that promotes infill development, and housing-related parks. Existing law, the Veterans' Bond Act of 2008, authorized, for purposes of financing a specified program for farm, home, and mobilehome purchase assistance for veterans, the issuance, pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law, of bonds in the amount of $900,000,000. This bill would enact the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018, which, if adopted, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $4,000,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law. Of the proceeds from the sale of these bonds, $3,000,000,000 would be used to finance various existing housing programs, as well as infill infrastructure financing and affordable housing matching grant programs, as provided, and $1,000,000,000 would be used to provide additional funding for the above-described program for farm, home, and mobilehome purchase assistance for veterans, as provided. This bill would provide for submission of the bond act to the voters at the November 6, 2018, statewide general election in accordance with specified law. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including water corporations, as defined. Under the Public Utilities Act, a public utility is required to seek commission approval prior to selling, leasing, assigning, mortgaging, or otherwise disposing of or encumbering any property necessary or useful in the performance of its duties to the public. Existing law authorizes regional park and open-space districts to acquire, and to lease or dispose of, real property, and rights in real property, within or without the regional district, that are necessary to the full exercise of the regional district's powers. This bill would authorize the San Jose Water Company to sell lands in the Upper Guadalupe River watershed, including the Los Gatos Creek and Saratoga Creek watersheds, to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District until January 1, 2023, as specified. The bill would require the water company to invest the net proceeds, if any, from the sale of land authorized by the bill in water system infrastructure, plant, facilities, and properties that are necessary or useful in the performance of its duties to the public. The bill would require the investment of the net proceeds to be included among the water company's other utility property upon which the commission authorizes the water company to earn a reasonable rate of return, as specified. The bill would provide that these requirements apply to the investment of the net proceeds from the sale for a period of 8 consecutive years, as prescribed, and would require the balance of any net proceeds and interest on the proceeds that is not invested after the 8-year period to be allocated solely to the water company ratepayers.
This measure would proclaim September 3, 2017, to September 9, 2017, inclusive, as Military and Veteran Suicide Prevention Awareness Week in California.
This measure would recognize the 3rd week of September 2017 and the 3rd week of September every year thereafter, as Child Passenger Safety Week.
This measure would designate November as California Sikh American Awareness and Appreciation Month. The measure would recognize and acknowledge the significant contributions that Californians of Sikh heritage have made to the state and would seek to afford all Californians the opportunity to understand, recognize, and appreciate the rich history and shared principles of Sikh Americans. The measure would also condemn all hate crimes and bias incidents against Sikh Americans and encourage all Sikhs to practice their faith freely and fearlessly.
This measure would designate the month of October 2017 as California Hindu American Awareness and Appreciation Month. The measure would also recognize and acknowledge the significant contributions made by Californians of Hindu heritage to our state. By adoption of this resolution, the Legislature seeks to increase awareness and understanding of the Hindu American community.
(1) The federal Clean Air Act regulates the discharge of air pollutants into the atmosphere. The federal Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants into water. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act establishes drinking water standards for drinking water systems. The federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 generally prohibits activities affecting threatened and endangered species listed pursuant to that act unless authorized by a permit from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, as appropriate. Existing state law regulates the discharge of air pollutants into the atmosphere. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act regulates the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the state. The California Safe Drinking Water Act establishes standards for drinking water and regulates drinking water systems. The California Endangered Species Act requires the Fish and Game Commission to establish a list of endangered species and a list of threatened species, and generally prohibits the taking of those species. This bill would require specified agencies to take prescribed actions to maintain and enforce certain requirements and standards pertaining to air, water, and protected species. By imposing new duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law provides for the enforcement of laws regulating the discharge of pollutants into the atmosphere and waters of the state. Existing law provides for the enforcement of drinking water standards. Existing law provides for the enforcement of the California Endangered Species Act. This bill would authorize a person acting in the public interest to bring an action to enforce certain standards and requirements implementing the above-mentioned state laws if specified conditions are satisfied. The bill would make the operation of this authorization contingent on the occurrence of certain events. (3) Existing federal law generally establishes standards for workers' rights and worker safety. Existing state law generally establishes standards for workers' rights and worker safety. This bill would prohibit a state agency that implements those laws from amending or revising its rules and regulations in a manner that is less stringent in its protection of workers' rights or worker safety than standards established by federal law in existence as of January 1, 2016. (4) Existing law authorizes a person to petition a court for the issuance of a writ of mandate to a public agency to compel the performance of an action required by law or to review a decision of the public agency. This bill would expressly authorize a person to petition a court for a writ of mandate to compel a state or local agency to perform an act required by, or to review a state or local agency's action for compliance with, this measure. (5) This bill would make its provisions inoperative as of January 20, 2021, and would repeal them as of January 1, 2022. (6) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.